Carmen Laforet: Nada

 First, I want to note that many interesting discussion-worthy plot points within this novel make it thoroughly enjoyable, but I want to mention two that were salient to me. Firstly I found it deeply intriguing to compare the friendship between Andrea and Ena with the friendship between Sofia and Ana-Maria. Both involve the main characters forming a deeply close relationship with a blonde woman who is adored widely for her indescribable qualities. Additionally in both novels, the main character is led to believe their friend betrayed them in some way for Andrea it was the notion that Ena was romantically involved with her Roman and for Ana-Maria it was the rumour that Sofia was sleeping with her husband. Furthermore, both ‘best-friend” characters describe their betrayal as a way to become closer to the main character, they both liken spending time with the forbidden individual to spending time with the main character. In Andrea's case, Ena states that “ when [Roman] played for me, in the candlelight, in that den of antiquities. . . . You don't know how much I thought about you. How interesting I thought you were because you lived in that unbelievable place. I understood you better ... I loved you” (135). Ena shares how the feeling that being in Roman’s presence elicited in her was so similar to the sensation of being with Andrea because they both share the same ineffable madness. I like people with that touch of madness that keeps life from being monotonous…like you. . . . People who, according to my family, are undesirable calamities (135)”. Ena’s monologue near the end of the book mirrors the sentiments of Sofia, in which she described being with Antionio as an extension of her wonderful days with Ana-Maria and that spending time with Antonio felt as though she was one with Ana-Maria. The similarities between these friendships continue as in the book the degree of Sofia and Ena’s betrayal is revealed and it is found that their disloyalties are vastly exaggerated. Finally, book relationships end with a sort of absolution and forgiveness for the best friend character, though for Sofia this happened after death which resulted in a much less cheerful ending. Overall, I think the similarities between the relationships in these books may help highlight the somewhat universal experience of betrayal within friendships (whether they are small or big) and the subsequent grief that comes from it, especially in youth. I think it also serves to make comments about the agency of women and how they can find freedom within a patriarchal society. This is especially true in Ena’s case as she uses Roman to satisfy her perverse desire and achieve retribution on her mother’s behalf. 

I also wanted to mention something I found quite peculiar and that is the mention of hands within this text. The authors frequently note the beauty of characters such as Angustias and Roman’s hands. Most noticeably after Roman’s suicide, Andrea produces an internal monologue in which she mentions Roman’s skilled hands repeatedly.

 “Those hands that life made hard and flexible at the same time, their color dark and yellowish because of tobacco stains, could say so much simply by moving upward. They knew how to express the precise eloquence of a moment. Those skilled hands—the hands of a thief, curious and greedy—appeared to me at first as crudely puffy, soft, swollen. Then, transformed into two clusters of fleshless bones” (237). I believe this may be to subvert the reader's expectations as people of lower economic status are often thought to have rougher hands. However, I feel there must be more to this recurring theme, So my question is What purpose did you think the mention and description of hands was supposed to have in this novel?